Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35305498›Full record

ArticleEnvironment international2022

Biological plausibility in environmental health systematic reviews: a GRADE concept paper.

Paul Whaley, Thomas Piggott, Rebecca L Morgan, Sebastian Hoffmann, Katya Tsaioun, Lukas Schwingshackl, Mohammed T Ansari, Kristina A Thayer, Holger J Schünemann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environment international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Effects of celery (Frontiers in nutrition · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Paul WhaleyLancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, UK; Evidence-based Toxicology Collaboration at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (EBTC), USA.
Thomas PiggottDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main St West, Hamilton, ON L8N 3Z5, Canada.
Rebecca L MorganDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main St West, Hamilton, ON L8N 3Z5, Canada.
Sebastian HoffmannEvidence-based Toxicology Collaboration at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (EBTC), USA.
Katya TsaiounEvidence-based Toxicology Collaboration at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (EBTC), USA.
Lukas SchwingshacklInstitute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Mohammed T AnsariSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Room 101, 600 Peter Morand Crescent, Ottawa, Ontario K1G 5Z3, Canada.
Kristina A ThayerU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Office of Research and Development, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment (CPHEA), Chemical Pollutant Assessment Division (CPAD), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (8623R), Washington, DC 20460, USA.
Holger J SchünemannDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main St West, Hamilton, ON L8N 3Z5, Canada; Michael G DeGroote Cochrane Canada and McMaster GRADE Centres, McMaster University, HSC-2C, 1280 Main St West, Hamilton, ON L8N 3Z5, Canada; Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini, 4, 20090 Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy.

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background"Biological plausibility" is a concept frequently referred to in environmental and public health when researchers are evaluating how confident they are in the results and inferences of a study or evidence review. Biological plausibility is not, however, a domain of one of the most widely-used approaches for assessing the certainty of evidence (CoE) which underpins the findings of a systematic review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) CoE Framework. Whether the omission of biological plausibility is a potential limitation of the GRADE CoE Framework is a topic that is regularly discussed, especially in the context of environmental health systematic reviews.

objectivesWe analyse how the concept of "biological plausibility", as applied in the context of assessing certainty of the evidence that supports the findings of a systematic review, is accommodated under the processes of systematic review and the existing GRADE domains. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: We argue that "biological plausibility" is a concept which primarily comes into play when direct evidence about the effects of an exposure on a population of concern (usually humans) is absent, at high risk of bias, is inconsistent, or limited in other ways. In such circumstances, researchers look toward evidence from other study designs in order to draw conclusions. In this respect, we can consider experimental animal and in vitro evidence as "surrogates" for the target populations, exposures, comparators and outcomes of actual interest. Through discussion of 10 examples of experimental surrogates, we propose that the concept of biological plausibility consists of two principal aspects: a "generalisability aspect" and a "mechanistic aspect". The "generalisability aspect" concerns the validity of inferences from experimental models to human scenarios, and asks the same question as does the assessment of external validity or indirectness in systematic reviews. The "mechanistic aspect" concerns certainty in knowledge of biological mechanisms and would inform judgements of indirectness under GRADE, and thus the overall CoE. While both aspects are accommodated under the indirectness domain of the GRADE CoE Framework, further research is needed to determine how to use knowledge of biological mechanisms in the assessment of indirectness of the evidence in systematic reviews.

Indexed as

Environmental HealthGRADE ApproachAnimalsBiasPublic HealthSystematic Reviews as TopicBiological plausibilityBradford HillEnvironmental healthEpidemiologySurrogatesSystematic reviewToxicology

Identifiers

PMID35305498
PMCPMC11897980

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.